Reading the headlines from the uprisings of the Arab Spring remind us how lucky we are to live in the United States, where free speech and the right to peaceable assembly are enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution. In too many places across the globe, efforts to challenge leaders or demand human rights are met with violence and repression. Since we consider these freedoms to be part of the fabric of our culture, it’s disturbing that two recent incidents in Central New York have violated that cherished concept.

On April 22, 33 people were charged with failing to obtain a DeWitt town permit to march into town and protest the U.S. military’s use of umanned drones at the New York Air National Guard’s base at Hancock Field. DeWitt has had a law on the books since 1987 that requires people or groups planning to march in the town to obtain a permit from the chief of police. But the protesters have marched near Hancock’s main gate in DeWitt twice a month for about two years without a permit. Their message has always been clear: They oppose the use of drones.

So why did town officials wait two years to raise the permit issue? Some activists suggest it’s because a sergeant at the base complained about the protesters’ presence. The town is within its rights to enforce the law. The protesters should obey the law. But to suddenly enforce a little-used ordinance because someone dislikes the protesters’ message violates the spirit of free speech.

The police response to the peaceful protesters — being met at the town line by Onondaga County sheriff’s deputies, vehicles standing ready to cart away those arrested — was out of proportion and intimidating.

Last week, DeWitt Justice David Gideon sensibly dismissed the charges against all 33 protesters “in the interest of justice.” He upheld the legality of DeWitt’s permit law, but noted the protesters had no malicious intent in not getting a permit and posed no threat to the public.

In a separate free speech case, a U.S. district judge said the way a Syracuse police officer enforced city ordinances against two traveling evangelists preaching on a busy downtown corner appears to be unconstitutional. Under the city’s noise ordinance, “unnecessary” noise is prohibited; a pamphleting ordinance protects religious leafleting. A police officer told the men to stop distributing religious literature and using a loudspeaker.

A lawsuit the evangelists filed against the city has not been resolved. For now, the pair can use loudspeakers downtown, and the Syracuse police chief criticized the officer involved in the case and issued a training bulletin that “ordered all officers to re-familiarize themselves with the ... ordinances.”

These cases appear on the way to resolution. The anti-drone protesters had the April 22 charges dismissed, and know they must obtain a permit to march in DeWitt. The city could lose the free-speech suit, but the police chief has made clear he won’t tolerate intimidation or incorrect interpretations of the city’s ordinances.

But the cases underscore the need to be vigilant in protecting the First Amendment. Everyone has a right to free speech — even those who deliver messages we may find annoying or distasteful.